If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Newlyweds Fight to Live Together

Newlyweds fight in to live in same homeby The Canadian Press
May 7, 2013 / 6:50 am

PORT JEFFERSON, N.Y. - With the beaming smiles of newlyweds, Paul Forziano and Hava Samuels hold hands, exchange adoring glances and complete each other's sentences. Their first wedding dance, he recalls, was to the song "Unchained ..." ''Melody," she chimes in.
They spend their days together in the performing arts education centre where they met. But every night, they must part ways. Forziano goes to his group home. His wife goes to hers.

The mentally disabled couple is not allowed to share a bedroom by the state-sanctioned nonprofits that run the group homes, a practice the newlyweds and their parents are now challenging in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

"We're very sad when we leave each other," Forziano says. "I want to live with my wife, because I love her."

The couple had been considering marriage for three years before tying the knot last month, and they contend in their lawsuit that they were refused permission from their respective group homes to live together as husband and wife. The couple's parents, also plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they have been seeking a solution since 2010.

"It's not something we wanted to do, it's something we had to do," said Bonnie Samuels, the mother of the bride.

The lawsuit contends Forziano's facility refused because people requiring the services of a group home are by definition incapable of living as married people, and it says Samuels' home refused because it believes she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex.

Legal experts are watching the case closely as a test of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which says, in part, that "a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures ... to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." The group homes are licensed as nonprofits by the state and receive Medicaid funding on behalf of their clients...

So what does everyone else think. Personally, with no precident, I think this is going to be a very interesting case.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

I think it is a simple fix. They live in a group home that has restrictions on them sleeping together and living together. I am sure that when they moved in they had no problem with the restrictions and most likely even signed paperwork agreeing to the restrictions. If they don't like the restrictions, they should move out. Their parents want them to live together so bad even though they are incapable of living on their own, they should let them move in with them.

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

I think it is a simple fix. They live in a group home that has restrictions on them sleeping together and living together. I am sure that when they moved in they had no problem with the restrictions and most likely even signed paperwork agreeing to the restrictions. If they don't like the restrictions, they should move out. Their parents want them to live together so bad even though they are incapable of living on their own, they should let them move in with them.

What about the argument that it goes against the Americans with Disabilities Act? These are government funded homes.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

I am going to be honest, I am not positive how IGHL is funded, but from what I understand they are a non-profit, not a government funded entity.

Either way, if they (or their parents as legal guardians) signed paperwork agreeing to comply with the restrictions of the home then the ADA doesn't apply. Sort of like how you can't claim the right to not have the police search your home after you have signed the paperwork agreeing to let them search your home. If you sign away your rights then you can not then claim protection under those rights.

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

I am going to be honest, I am not positive how IGHL is funded, but from what I understand they are a non-profit, not a government funded entity.

Right in the story:
"The group homes are licensed as nonprofits by the state and receive Medicaid funding on behalf of their clients"

Originally Posted by duane1969

Either way, if they (or their parents as legal guardians) signed paperwork agreeing to comply with the restrictions of the home then the ADA doesn't apply. Sort of like how you can't claim the right to not have the police search your home after you have signed the paperwork agreeing to let them search your home. If you sign away your rights then you can not then claim protection under those rights.

Again, that comes up in the story:
"Legal experts are watching the case closely as a test of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which says, in part, that 'a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures ... to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability'."

Seriously, did you read anything past the second paragraph? Do I need to post the whole thing again?

Now, as a state-sanctioned non-profit which receives government money on behalf of those living there, does it qualify as a "public entity". To me, that's going to be what it comes down to, but I read the story, so...

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

They need to follow the rules of the group homes. As said earlier if the parents don't like them it is on their dime to take care of the kids. If it is on the states dime you follow the rules. The ADA is a joke anyways on a lot of issues.

perhaps if they are abled enough to be able to marry then perhaps they can live outside of the group home? otherwise, I don't think they have any rights when it comes to their living arrangements, and the parents have no rights at all.

I don't think the Constitution states any where that we need to provide a place for a newly married MRDD couple to live in a group home setting. the money provided by the government to run these grouphomes is for the individual care of each person.

I'm not understanding. If they were legally able to marry each other as consenting adults why can't they get a place of their own as consenting adults? These are the rules of the house they live in. If they don't want to abide by them they should leave.